Democracy or Stability: A Choice in Africa?

In a continent where contested elections often lead to violence, can the two go together or is stability, at the sacrifice of democracy, more important to African development right now?

Earlier this year, Equatorial Guinea's long standing president announced he will be joining a number of other African presidents who are seeking a further term in office. Whilst others appear to be trying a more legal way, if it can even be called that, by changing the constitution, President Teodoro Obiang Nguema announced that he has won party support to run again, despite having been in power for 36 years. In April, President Nguema won the vote and although controversial, stability has triumphed.

Meanwhile next door in the Congo, President Denis Sassou Nguesso won a bid in July to change the constitution to allow him to extend his 31 year rule. Similar things are happening in the DRC (President Joseph Kabila, 14 years), Rwanda (President Paul Kagame, 14 years), and Burundi (President Pierre Nkurunziza, 10 years) with varying levels of opposition.

Whilst many are not happy about the situation, it does beg the question of what is more necessary in a continent where conflict is regularly seen as a go to option: democracy or stability. As history shows, when a president decides that he is not ready to leave office, against the will of the people, it usually does not bode well for the country. Violence almost always follows, plunging the nation into years of civil war that sets it back decades.

Of course, democracy is a key factor in any nation and citizens have every right to be outraged when a president twists the constitution to suit his own needs so that he might run again. However, in cases when a country is progressive under a specific leader, perhaps even just peaceful, maybe stability is better than true democracy.

The Kenyan Example

Although he was only running for his second term, President Mwai Kibaki won the Kenyan election in 2007 in what was a questionable poll. The opposition, under Raila Odinga, boycotted the result and called on Kenyans to take to the streets to protest. What followed was three months of ethnic violence sparked by the Kibaki's win, leading to over 2000 deaths. Fast forward to 2013, and Kenyans once more went to the polls. Uhuru Kenyatta, of the same tribe as Kibaki, won in what again was a questionable election. This time, however, there were no protests. The extent of opposition was limited to Odinga’s appeal in the courts which failed. Kenyatta was declared president and a wary Kenya moved on. A common statement at the time was that they had sacrificed democracy for peace and stability.

It does, of course, depend on the president. When they are a brutal, murdering, genocidal, country destroying, corrupt despot, there can be no room for question: they have to go. Yet when they have produced some kind of progress for the country, or at least stability that allows people to develop, then perhaps there is an argument for allowing them to stay.

Rwandan 'Democracy'

This might just be the case for Paul Kagame, president of Rwanda. A Rwandan referendum recently passed a constitutional amendment that will make an exception for Kagame and allow him to run for a third term, .  With Kagame at the helm, Rwanda has come a long way since the 1994 genocide that rocked the country. The Global Competitive Report, when ranking the most efficient governments, put Rwanda 1st in Africa and 7th globally. According to the World Bank, its life expectancy has risen dramatically in the last ten years and huge improvements have been made in education, economics and infrastructure.

On the other hand, Kagame is not the biggest supporter of press freedom and there is certainly not a lot of room for government criticism in Rwanda. As for the legitimacy of his electoral victories, there is clearly some doubt and there have been allegations of government harassment of opposition. And his attempts to create an air of reconciliation between the two ethnic groups involved in the 1994 genocide have been moderate to say the least.

Overall, he’s a controversial character. Yet there is no denying that he has done a lot for Rwandan development and could possibly do a lot more. But could a challenge to his third term bid result in a similar scenario to 1994 and plunge Rwanda back twenty years? It’s possible which is why one might be inclined to choose stability over democracy.

As to the other African dictators, none have nearly as good a record for development as Kagame. But again, could a challenge to their leadership only lead to conflict? Perhaps some leaders aren't as progressive or inspirational as we hope but as long as they promote stability and peace, then there is certainly room for development, even if it is only at a grassroots level. Not democratic development of course, but perhaps peace and stability are more important in Africa right now.

What once was to idolise is now to debate

The changing concept of statues and their place in our society

It is important to remember that as times change, so the outlooks and meanings change with them.

The ‘Rhodes Must Fall’ debate has captured the attention of the world because it has a raised a controversial argument over the role of once celebrated figures and their places in history today. Cecil John Rhodes, a victorian empire builder who made his fortune in Africa, has been at the centre of this debate. A campaign, which began at the University of Cape Town to see the iconic statue of him there removed, has now spread closer to Rhode’s own home, as protesters seek the removal of another statue of Rhodes at the University of Oxford.

The movement is growing, however, and is spreading beyond Rhodes to other controversial figures who also hold legacies bound in the university such as Christopher Codrington, a seventeenth century West Indies plantation owner and notable slaver who also holds a statue in All Souls College at Oxford.

Whilst I do not in any way condone the awful and unsympathetic actions of historical figures who have achieved fame and fortune through the brutalisation and subjugation of others, I think it is important to understand how the concept of statues and legacies, and their meaning and use has changed dramatically through the ages.

Whilst studying History at the University of Manchester, I took a module that looked at the concepts of heroism and how the way we not only celebrate heroes has changed, but also the way we look to so called heroes of the past has changed. Whilst the idea of raising statues of figures was, at point, simply to celebrate their deeds, triumphs and accomplishments, nowadays they serve an entirely different purpose in society, namely to remind and create debate over how and why those supposed accomplishments were earned and what legacy they leave behind, be it bad or good.

In Rhodes’ case, it is obvious that statues of him were created to celebrate the triumphs of one of Britain's most successful empire builders. Today, however, those statues of him exist to serve purposes on several levels. On a more simple level, they remind us of a controversial colonial legacy that was built through the subjugation of others and the pillaging of resources and cultures of societies all over the globe, a legacy that is it important not to forget.

With regard to this first purpose, to remove a statue is an attempt in itself to sweep away a nation’s history and has dangerous implications, for that history, however uncomfortable it may be to remember, is a glue that shapes the culture of a particular nation. It is more important to remember and ask why then it is to forget and not ask at all, for in doing so, you risk repeating history.

On a more complicated level, however, statues serve to create debate over the roles, controversial or otherwise, of people like Rhodes and their contributions to the legacy of a nation, however uncomfortable that may be, and to understand how the ideas of hero-worship are constantly changing through the years, as is so much in society.

So to the protestors of the movement I say that we do not look upon Rhodes and other statues with awe and inspiration. We look instead to be reminded of how the concepts surrounding the uses of statues and of the worship of public figures in general have and will continue to change. For if that is not true, and we set a dangerous precedent by removing his statue, then we’d all better put our notepads away and get our hammer and chisels out, for we have a lot of work to do, the world over.